- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2009 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an application filed by the Respondent-applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act", for short).
(2.) The Registry has raised an objection about the maintainability of the appeal. According to the Registry, the appeal is time-barred by twenty-three days, and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condoning the delay. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has filed a reply to the said objection. Vide order dated 29th July, 2010, this Court had sought explanation of the stamp reporter for having raised the objection. For, according to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, Section 37 of the Act does not prescribe a period of limitation. Moreover, Section 43 of the Act does not deal with an appeal, but deals with arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to the order dated July 29, 2010, the concerned section officer has submitted his explanation through the Deputy Registrar (Judl.).
(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently argued that Section 37 of the Act empowers a person to file an appeal against an order granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the Act. Since the application under Section 9 of the Act was allowed by the learned Judge, without issuing any notice to the Appellant, the Appellant is entitled to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. However, Section 37 of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation. Therefore, the general law of limitation as contained in Limitation Act, 1963 is inapplicable. Hence, the Registry is not justified in claiming that the present appeal is delayed by twenty-three days. In order to buttress his contention, the learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Jagson Intl. Ltd., 2005 3 ArbLR 167 and in the case of Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Shivajirao S/o Gopalrao Hujare, 2004 3 ArbLR 602 .;